Anonymous ID: 08a5de Aug. 5, 2018, 11:18 p.m. No.2476415   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6434 >>6439 >>6481 >>6503 >>6560 >>6562 >>6564 >>6569 >>6570 >>6582 >>6637

>>2476353

Scott Adams is garnering the attention of people who aren't sure about Q or believe Q is fake.

He's done this many times, most notably his support of Trump.

Before meeting with Trump last week, Scott only mentioned Q once, saying something like "I'm not ready to talk about Q yet"

After meeting with Trump Scott has mentioned Q several times, though negatively.

This is a persuasion technique, that if you're familiar with Scotts work is pretty obvious what he's doing.

After garnering interest and becoming trustworthy from those who don't believe in Q he will then begin to publicly change his mind and change as many minds as he can.

In his last periscope, Scott gave the advice that we shouldn't be supporting Q in such a larpy way in public. I believe we should follow his advice, and simply act skeptical and interested.

Many of us have learned this lesson the hard way by tying our name to Q predictions, not realizing many of those predictions were meant to goad a reaction from the enemy.

Anonymous ID: 08a5de Aug. 5, 2018, 11:34 p.m. No.2476535   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6553 >>6693

>>2476527

Oh.

He's a known shill, one of the first to get his security clearances pulled and for good reason.

Navy Intelligence, and the Navy in general has seen some of the worst cases of corruption of all the military.

Anonymous ID: 08a5de Aug. 5, 2018, 11:46 p.m. No.2476614   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>2476553

The issue I have with Scott's tactics, just in the example of his support/withdrawal/resupport of Trump; is that he always criticizes confirmation bias.

The reason for this is because confirmation bias is what he would have labeled his fellow Californians of having when they called him out on his obvious tactics:

>"You can't tell what I'm thinking, just because I've done this a dozen times before doesn't mean your assumption is valid."

It's a chess move, but kindof a lame one if you've seen it before.

Anonymous ID: 08a5de Aug. 5, 2018, 11:55 p.m. No.2476686   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6709 >>6729 >>6732

>>2476637

POTUS wouldn't have to debrief Scott on the entirety of the plan. Anons play a large role and we have no idea what's going on. That doesn't mean Scott can't be incredibly useful with his audience, he's partially responsible for Kanye and Candice Owens recent impact.

Just watch his periscope after meeting with Trump, doesn't say why he was there, who else was there, or what was discussed. But he does gush quite a bit - POTUS could've asked anything from him and he'd do it.